Emma Green’s article is characterized by two things: a shoddy (at best) understanding of the Bible; and a spurious view of ethics.

First, to narrow down the scope of the apologia, we will deal with what she simply got wrong and put it aside. Emma Green writes:

Then again, this idea, that whole peoples should be punished for their sins, comes up repeatedly in the Bible. Examples include Sodom and Gomorrah, cities that were destroyed by God, and Nineveh, which ultimately was not. The consequences of sin in ancient times were total and intense; God wiped out quite a few civilizations in the course of crafting early humanity.

Nineveh will not be dealt with here, other than to say that God sends a prophet to get them to repent, they do so, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Sodom and Gommorah are flawed examples at best — they simply do not represent collective punsihment. This is not “whole peoples should be punished for their sins”.

33 And the LORD went His way, as soon as He had left off speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned unto his place.

This is in no way, shape, or form an example of unjust collective punishment. Rather it is punishing a large number of people, all of whom are individually wicked. Further proof of this can be found when they demand to rape Lot’s guests, in the next chapter:

4 But before they lay down [the angels/guests – MS], the men of the city, the men of Sodom, encircled the house, from the young to the old, all the people from every quarter.

The emphasis here is on the fact that it is everyone. There are not even ten righteous people. This would be the first and obvious example of collective punishment being justified: when every single individual in the collective is guilty. This is akin to punishing for gang rape, they are each individually guilty.

While the words ‘collective punishment’ never appear, it is clearly referenced. Emma Green writes:

The Egyptians were theoretically culpable for the lives they led at the cost of Hebrew slave labor, yes. But to slaughter innocents because of the actions of their leaders—and because their race was not chosen to be part of an ancient covenant—seems appallingly cruel.

This begins the second part. It is idiotic to believe that the moral obligation of the Individual ends at the walls of his house, or worse, the walls of his room. People have a responsibility for the way the educate their family. And most importantly for this specific case, they have a moral responsibility for the actions of society. Slavery in the United States, for instance, was a widespread moral failing. The slaveholder, certainly, is the most to blame. But the neighbor also bears responsibility. He could have assisted their fleeing. The people as a whole could have abolished slavery. Leaders are not leaders in a vacuum. Even dictators require support.

14 And the officers of the children of Israel, whom Pharaoh’s taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, saying: ‘Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your appointed task in making brick both yesterday and today as heretofore?’

The taskmasters are yet another class of people doing evil of their own volition. The urgency, the diligence; were they good they wouldn’t be diligent here. They chose to enforce it effectively. They chose to beat the slaves. Pharaoh himself can’t go around whipping everyone; he requires sycophants to do it for him. While it is true that after the seventh plague the servants of Pharaoh say: “How long shall this man be a snare unto us?”, even then, they have not repented, rather only shown a desire for self-preservation. Self-preservation is not repentance, it is just fear of the consequences. They haven’t recanted the action. All in all, the Egyptians never truly repent, and only give in when it is too late.

So what is it that we see here? Yes, indeed, this is collective punishment. But the collective punishment is punishing a collective sin. Egyptian society is content for over a hundred years to enjoy the fruits of slavery. They all are complicit in the crime. It is not merely Pharaoh — it is the higher-ups, it is the taskmasters; it is the previous generation of leaders, rulers, and taskmasters. Egyptian society sins in this way for multiple generations and only then do they finally get punished.

Modern liberal thought often overemphasizes the individual, and here it is the case. The apathy of the people, the vigorousness of the taskmasters, and the moral corruption of the society as a whole incur the punishment. This is collective punishment for collective sin. Even the person who himself is not a taskmaster is complicit in this sin. A person cannot isolate himself from society.

This idea is brought in Jewish philosophy and law in several places. I would like to focus on one: Egla Arufa.

3 And it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke.

5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near–for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.

The elders of the city wash there hands in water at the place of the breaking of the calf’s neck and say: “Our hands did not spill this blood, and our eyes did not see.” And it would cross our mind that the elders of the Beth Din are spillers of blood!? Rather, that we did not let him leave without food, and that we didn’t see him leaving so that we could not accompany him.